Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why are conservatives defending an international conglomerate over American Workers?
Sorta strange. EGT is owned by North America, South Korea and Japan. They also broke an agreement with the ILWU.
Why are conservatives defending an international conglomerate over American Workers?
Sorta strange. EGT is owned by North America, South Korea and Japan. They also broke an agreement with the ILWU.
Why are you defending violence? The company hired union workers-just not ILWU workers. Apart from all of that...we need our companies to be free to hire whatever workers they want to without fear of violence and retaliation!
This kind of violence is why unions are refereed to as thugs.
Why are conservatives defending an international conglomerate over American Workers?
Sorta strange. EGT is owned by North America, South Korea and Japan. They also broke an agreement with the ILWU.
Why are you defending violence? The company hired union workers-just not ILWU workers. Apart from all of that...we need our companies to be free to hire whatever workers they want to without fear of violence and retaliation!
This kind of violence is why unions are refereed to as thugs.
That was the problem. They were hiring scabs. EGT broke the agreement.
Hey..if the police don't want to enforce an agreement..ILWU has every right to strike.
And protest.
Actually..maybe the government should sit this out. Free market and all ya know.
Pretty sure the longshoremen can settle this.
Why are conservatives defending an international conglomerate over American Workers?
Sorta strange. EGT is owned by North America, South Korea and Japan. They also broke an agreement with the ILWU.
Why are you defending violence? The company hired union workers-just not ILWU workers. Apart from all of that...we need our companies to be free to hire whatever workers they want to without fear of violence and retaliation!
This kind of violence is why unions are refereed to as thugs.
Why are you defending violence? The company hired union workers-just not ILWU workers. Apart from all of that...we need our companies to be free to hire whatever workers they want to without fear of violence and retaliation!
This kind of violence is why unions are refereed to as thugs.
That was the problem. They were hiring scabs. EGT broke the agreement.
Hey..if the police don't want to enforce an agreement..ILWU has every right to strike.
And protest.
Actually..maybe the government should sit this out. Free market and all ya know.
Pretty sure the longshoremen can settle this.
Well actually you make the case that it was a legal matter. The choice was to protest peacefully and seek legal redress, not get violent and destroy property... It is never a cops duty to settle a legal matter, that's why we have a court system.
Nice to see democrats once again advocating violence when their side are the perpetrators.
non union people do bad things also.
you are right they do, you have a wonderful way to totally ignore the thread. My family has had windows shot out of the house in the 50'S and it wasn't done by non-union thugs but the ones trying to unionize our company.
if a movement ever starts to cure idiocy you will be the poster child.
That was the problem. They were hiring scabs. EGT broke the agreement.
Hey..if the police don't want to enforce an agreement..ILWU has every right to strike.
And protest.
Actually..maybe the government should sit this out. Free market and all ya know.
Pretty sure the longshoremen can settle this.
Well actually you make the case that it was a legal matter. The choice was to protest peacefully and seek legal redress, not get violent and destroy property... It is never a cops duty to settle a legal matter, that's why we have a court system.
Nice to see democrats once again advocating violence when their side are the perpetrators.
This is the outcome you guys want. You think people are going to quietly go back to the way things were before the New Deal.
Well..lets review. Workers did try to get redress in the court system. The court system favored the well monied. Why? They were sorta on the take. So people formed Unions. The Businesses responded by beating up people and assasinating leaders. The Unions responded by destorying property and gumming up the works. Things got so bad..the government stepped in. They allowed Unions to form and organize and they created binding arbitration so the wheels started turning again. This worked out very well until like 1980 when Ronald Reagan started breaking Unions. Things went down hill since then. Wages have been flat..and executives have been getting obscenely rich.
People are fed up.
non union people do bad things also.
you are right they do, you have a wonderful way to totally ignore the thread. My family has had windows shot out of the house in the 50'S and it wasn't done by non-union thugs but the ones trying to unionize our company.
if a movement ever starts to cure idiocy you will be the poster child.
Well actually you make the case that it was a legal matter. The choice was to protest peacefully and seek legal redress, not get violent and destroy property... It is never a cops duty to settle a legal matter, that's why we have a court system.
Nice to see democrats once again advocating violence when their side are the perpetrators.
This is the outcome you guys want. You think people are going to quietly go back to the way things were before the New Deal.
Well..lets review. Workers did try to get redress in the court system. The court system favored the well monied. Why? They were sorta on the take. So people formed Unions. The Businesses responded by beating up people and assasinating leaders. The Unions responded by destorying property and gumming up the works. Things got so bad..the government stepped in. They allowed Unions to form and organize and they created binding arbitration so the wheels started turning again. This worked out very well until like 1980 when Ronald Reagan started breaking Unions. Things went down hill since then. Wages have been flat..and executives have been getting obscenely rich.
People are fed up.
We don't need a history lesson pre-union. The courts would have to recognize laws that are now established.
No one was assassinating union leaders. Union leaders and their members were the perpetrators of the violence and destruction of property. They have the same rights to redress contracts that all persons do...in a court of law!
That you advocate violence is very telling.
This is the outcome you guys want. You think people are going to quietly go back to the way things were before the New Deal.
Well..lets review. Workers did try to get redress in the court system. The court system favored the well monied. Why? They were sorta on the take. So people formed Unions. The Businesses responded by beating up people and assasinating leaders. The Unions responded by destorying property and gumming up the works. Things got so bad..the government stepped in. They allowed Unions to form and organize and they created binding arbitration so the wheels started turning again. This worked out very well until like 1980 when Ronald Reagan started breaking Unions. Things went down hill since then. Wages have been flat..and executives have been getting obscenely rich.
People are fed up.
We don't need a history lesson pre-union. The courts would have to recognize laws that are now established.
No one was assassinating union leaders. Union leaders and their members were the perpetrators of the violence and destruction of property. They have the same rights to redress contracts that all persons do...in a court of law!
That you advocate violence is very telling.
The Union has every right to strike and protest.
If the cops see violence...arrest the perps.
Simple as that.
We don't need a history lesson pre-union. The courts would have to recognize laws that are now established.
No one was assassinating union leaders. Union leaders and their members were the perpetrators of the violence and destruction of property. They have the same rights to redress contracts that all persons do...in a court of law!
That you advocate violence is very telling.
This is what happens when you fuck with a person's livelihood.
We don't need a history lesson pre-union. The courts would have to recognize laws that are now established.
No one was assassinating union leaders. Union leaders and their members were the perpetrators of the violence and destruction of property. They have the same rights to redress contracts that all persons do...in a court of law!
That you advocate violence is very telling.
The Union has every right to strike and protest.
If the cops see violence...arrest the perps.
Simple as that.
It was not so simple, since the cops were greatly outnumbered and were held hostage through intimidation!
No one denied the right to a peaceful protest...but YOU have advocated violence and have even offered an excuse for it. Why do you support union violence?
We don't need a history lesson pre-union. The courts would have to recognize laws that are now established.
No one was assassinating union leaders. Union leaders and their members were the perpetrators of the violence and destruction of property. They have the same rights to redress contracts that all persons do...in a court of law!
That you advocate violence is very telling.
see: Jimmy Hoffa
This is what happens when you fuck with a person's livelihood.
And yet as TEA Party people, around the nation, participated in peaceful protest against the Stimulus and Obamacare, liberals called them racists and and accused them using violence-when none was used.
What union people don't seem to understand is that the private sector have a huge stake in government spending that affects their "pocket book".
So are you advocating violence for unions?
This is what happens when you fuck with a person's livelihood.
And yet as TEA Party people, around the nation, participated in peaceful protest against the Stimulus and Obamacare, liberals called them racists and and accused them using violence-when none was used.
What union people don't seem to understand is that the private sector have a huge stake in government spending that affects their "pocket book".
So are you advocating violence for unions?
And yet..Liberals always said..the Tea Party has every right to protest.
